PDA

View Full Version : Religion



Ikji
11-02-2005, 07:29 PM
What do you people think about religion? What is the right religion? Do you even believe in a religion? What are your views about the conflicts between them? Elaborate as you see fit.
I find it hard to believe in something when there are so many other things it is based on, it is hard to find something "original" and all knowing. Almost every religion has its roots in another religion.

hba
11-02-2005, 11:48 PM
Americans worship money. Religion = Money.

Seperate God from School.
Seperate God from Government.
But on your money it says "In God We Trust"

All this time I've been looking for God and he's right in my pocket!

But that's just America, not sure how anyone else here who's not from the US is about religion.

Akazukin
11-03-2005, 12:46 AM
I'm a free thinker. I believe humans have created God instead.

At the age when humans were exploring the world, inventing fire and weapons, they realise that whatever seeds they have planted, they will get the similiar fruit in return. Thus Earth was known as "mother nature". They hear thunders and believe that spirits exists in the sky. They have poor harvest, and believe "mother nature" is angry, and what they do is to offer human sacrifises.

Chinese believe that God exist above the clouds, but they are proven wrong after the first spacecraft launch. Indians believe that elephants are God, probably during the ancient times, the elephants saved their harvest by offering good fertilizers :lol:

In Asia, many groups of people have started to acknowledge christian teachings. At the same time, Islam teachings are spreading strongly. More churchs were built. Chinese do visit those old chinese temples to pray for good luck and good fortune, but many chinese have started to believe in Jesus. When conflicts occured, a man naturally choses a 'more convincing' God.

If we can know which is the right religion, then it is no longer a divine, but Science. Imagine all of us have contributed $1000 to build the biggest and tallest God statue , the place will naturally become a holy ground. Thus, it is humans who have created God, be it stories, studies, worships or achitectural.

A lousy civilisation leds to a lousy language and therefore also a lousy God. :lol:

ComradeSlavic
11-03-2005, 04:30 AM
How do you mean a "lousy God?" In all cases where a society believes in a god, that god fulfills a vacume in explainations that science cannot explain. So thier god cannot be bad, as its sole purpose is to explain the way things are and why. So really once a society has not need for the god, because maybe they advanced to the point where much of what the god did is explained by science, then many times they keep the same god but change its characteristics.

So if you go by what I just said then I'm against what Akazukin said, and yet I just supported the idea of god being a creation of man. However this is not my personal belief, nor will this be my final arguement :).

magikmonky
11-03-2005, 12:57 PM
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited by Andover[yT]: Magik , if you are going to quote something , at least say something after the quote.

Warning#1: At 3 Warnings your membership WILL be removed for a set amount of time to be determined by the Moderators of this forum.

-Andover[yT]
ICG Moderator
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Otaku
11-03-2005, 03:42 PM
Yes, but the problem begins when people have difficulty letting go of the fact that God was a scientific crutch. :/:

Orchidomegaly
11-03-2005, 04:29 PM
Reasons for believing in god are personal, differ from person to person. There is not one universal reason to believe in god.

Also i must say that as much as you can't prove god exist, you can't prove that he doesn't.

Ikji
11-03-2005, 04:35 PM
Reasons for believing in god are personal, differ from person to person. There is not one universal reason to believe in god.

Also i must say that as much as you can't prove god exist, you can't prove that he doesn't.
The main reason for a belief in God or a belief system in general from a religious base is an afterlife. Pre-humans (nea.) were burried in fetal positions with small amounts of food. Keep in mind that as time passed and people became more advanced and evolved, the people burried with honors for the afterlife were leaders.

Belphegor
11-03-2005, 05:10 PM
I believe a being exist's on a higher plain then we do, as I believe one lower. No, not just "heaven", and "hell", but more of diffrent beings.

I also believe that when these beings interact with us, it gives the people reasons, or causes to believe in God.

DA(
11-03-2005, 06:19 PM
I believe in nothing.

Training-Name
11-04-2005, 06:52 AM
There is no proof, and there needs to be no proof that a higher being than us exists. Of course, that is not to say that some people cannot believe what they would like to. Who wrote the bible? All I've ever heard about that is that monks wrote the bible. Maybe there is no "God" or such. Maybe we are just the creation of a single, small piece of matter that split into two, and kept multiplying. Maybe it had a few changes along the line which created us. Though, that still, is not to say that people cannot believe in religion.

magikmonky
11-04-2005, 04:49 PM
I believe in reincarnation :)

Training-Name
11-05-2005, 04:13 AM
Okay there, Mr. Crazy. I used to believe in that though.

NAATYE
11-06-2005, 08:10 AM
Is the invention of "god" a subconscious act of our mind to protect, explain, and embrace us during events that are to complex, or difficult to be dealt with. Could we have invented "god" and the "afterlife" in order to soften the mental anguish that death generously bestows upon us? Could we have then embraced this "god" to help explain how we came into existence? Is it possible that this "god" is both omnipotent because it only exists in our minds, where we control the rules and laws thus giving it unlimited boundaries. And could god be omnipresent because once again it is in our minds, and if we imagine a place, we can simply, insert god there to?

But could "god" actually exist in a tangible, provable form? If so how could we have faith? How could we actually love "god" on the plane required? Isn't that the ultimate expression of love, and faithfulness, to blindly follow with not a single shred of evidence? Is faith eagerly awaiting the return, with no guarantees when or if it will ever happen? Could this be the love and faithful devotion that "god" requires? How can you have faith in something you can prove? If you could prove it then it would be fact, and as such no faith required. In the end faith and fact cannot coexist. And if "god" is a higher being that requires us to have faith, then "god" could never allow us to prove Divine existence.

But what about religion, that was created by "god" right? If "god" is a prehistoric mechanism invented by our subconscious, then religion would be the corrupt counter part invented by our dirty conscious, simply to name, reason, and control the super-being which our subconscious’s invented. But wait god is an object right? And he ordained ministers, spoke to pastors, and blessed rabbis’ right? But if those Divine happenings did in fact occur then proof has been provided, thus eliminating the need for faith?

Maybe instead religion is no more than a method of slavery. Could the term "god" only exist to provide a universal proxy by which this creation can referenced? If we could not reference this "god" then we could not control it, thus inhibiting the ability to manipulate those who believe in our control as well. So could "god" be the whip of religion? Could war be the cotton of religion? Could hell be the noose of religion, for those who choose to run?

But religion has never forced anybody to do anything? Well quite the contrary, with this noose so eloquently termed "eternal damnation", it has forced war (Israel, Palestine), murder (9.11), rape (catholic priests), and mayhem (crusades). Religion is quite simply the deadliest and most corrupt form of slavery ever devised. Our priests, rabbis, pastors, monks, etc are none other than our masters. What are the qualifications for this promotion in society? Simply to be able to manipulate this slave control mechanism effectively.

So how does religion and government relate, if they both must control the hearts and minds of there followers? Could the separation of church and state be one slave master declaring war on another master? Are we be about to witness a war of epic proportions? Could this war be for our hearts and minds? Can you really have two slave masters and not have friction; after all we are not omnipresent are we? Based on this logical friction, government and religion must be separated to prevent the impending war. But if you separate them, then one must loose and one must win? So how do you decide that? Well who has the biggest guns? Religion has eternal damnation, and enduring love, government has health, wealth, and pride. Perhaps this is why our countries forefathers decided it was best to play referee and separate the two? But couldn't government and religion get along? No. They must be separated as both require absolute devotion, and one cannot be 100% devoted to two items.

So where does this leave us.... well for lack of better terms it leaves us cluster ****ed, with no clear answers or paths to choose, only that we must choose what is best for I.

Bilago
11-06-2005, 08:47 AM
did u write all that man lol damn.

i dont beleive god is created by man.

i beleive there is other beings of a higher plane as God, angels, and demons.

people have experienced "demonized attacks" from tryin to contact spirits

it is universal knowledge that jesus did walk the earth (other then the jews) some might believe that he wasnt son of god, but comon who else do you know that can heal the sick and the lame?

there is no universal conclusion to come to as not everyone will beleive the same.

Religion and Government our on their last threads and will soon have this "war" spoken about above. it is mentioned in the bible about a great tribulation, with the abandonment of religion.

NAATYE
11-06-2005, 09:14 AM
did u write all that man lol damn.

i dont beleive god is created by man.

i beleive there is other beings of a higher plane as God, angels, and demons.

people have experienced "demonized attacks" from tryin to contact spirits

it is universal knowledge that jesus did walk the earth (other then the jews) some might believe that he wasnt son of god, but comon who else do you know that can heal the sick and the lame?

there is no universal conclusion to come to as not everyone will beleive the same.

Religion and Government our on their last threads and will soon have this "war" spoken about above. it is mentioned in the bible about a great tribulation, with the abandonment of religion.

Of course I wrote all that. :P

So then you believe in god as a object. You took option #2 from above.

"Demonized attacks", have any proof on that, why could it not be something else. Could it that demons are just be a proxy used to explain something that we consider dark and scary, but can't figure out how it happened? After all we would not want to corrupt our "god" with dark things like that would we? Wouldn't that just be the easier answer?

Fact Jesus did walk the earth... I can agree to that one. But was he the son of god? Well, if god is a object, then it is possible, but if god is a mechanism then it is impossible. So once again it depends on what you believe god to be, doesn't it? But how come there is no miracle healing? How come Jesus provided proof as to his existence to a small generation of people? Wouldn't this diminish there faith and make mine even greater? Why did god and Satan even have to duke it out? God wins right? He created Satan and is obviously more powerful right? Then why did Jesus have to die on a cross for our sins? Why this monumental change of heart by god (referencing the OT vs. NT)?

If everybody doesn't believe the same, then a lot of people have to be wrong don't they? Are you telling me that all Buddhist are going to hell? And why are Christians not going to hell, since Buddhism is correct? Oh wait, I forgot Buddhism and Christianity, are all wrong, it is Judaism that is correct. Huh... kinda funny though, why are gods chosen people going to hell, since they don't believe in Jesus? Wow what a confusing subject, perhaps the right answer is that Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Buddhist are all worshiping the same god, and just don't know it. Man God can really play some cruel jokes can't he. But wait... god is just a mechanism right?

Could we be in the middle of this great tribulation right now? Does it only apply to Christians? are they the only ones going to be persecuted, if so, would that make Christianity the only true religion out there, and all the others found out and are pissed, or could it be Christianity is the only wrong one, and is now being persecuted for its ignorance?

Please note that I have not once stated where my faith is, so do not try to draw conclusions based on your assumptions of my faith.

ComradeSlavic
11-06-2005, 02:27 PM
I'm assuming that you are doing as I do and just like playing the devil's advocate to try and get people thinking, also good job organizing your thoughts like that. If I could get my thoughts into a coherent post then it would be similar to that.

On a personal side though I would like to say this:
Pretty much every single society either does or has believed in a god. Now the fact that every single organized group of humans has at one point believed in a deity makes it universal, across oceans, land, and massive distances. This leaves only a few options.
1) There really is a god that caused all humans to believe in a higher power.
2) It is programmed into us somehow (genetically) to have some sort of hope or believe in something greater than you.
3)All Machiavellian humans from pre-history to present, independently from each other, found one final way to exert control over their populace/society using religion and god as their means to an end.

Take your pick.

hba
11-06-2005, 02:34 PM
The invention "god" is a subconscious act of our mind to protect, explain, and embrace us during events that are to complex, or difficult to be dealt with.
If you can't come to cope with just this statement, then you are truly a believer and can never be salvaged.

Otaku
11-06-2005, 03:39 PM
2) It is programmed into us somehow (genetically) to have some sort of hope or believe in something greater than you.

I read a National Geographic article on the finding of a region in your brain or something that made you believe in God. I think the cover said something like it was "hardwired" into us. I'd have to go find it =p

IversonAli3
11-06-2005, 03:42 PM
I read a National Geographic article on the finding of a region in your brain or something that made you believe in God. I think the cover said something like it was "hardwired" into us. I'd have to go find it =p

It was Time magazine. They referred to it as the "God gene".

Otaku
11-06-2005, 03:49 PM
No, it was National Geographic.

llafnwod
11-06-2005, 08:21 PM
Could it be? Could two famous news magazines have actually have reported on the same story? Impossible, I say!

NAATYE
11-07-2005, 04:53 AM
Could it be.... that the magazine name is irrelevant? Can anybody follow up with a decent argument to mine? Or should I just quit debating? Since my arguments have now finished up two topics. Anybody with half a brain should be able to poke holes through the several fallacies deployed in my arguments. Hell if nobody steps up maybe I will start teaching a class on how to poke holes through common arguements.

banana_sam
11-07-2005, 07:41 AM
Is the invention of "god" a subconscious act of our mind to protect, explain, and embrace us during events that are to complex, or difficult to be dealt with. Could we have invented "god" and the "afterlife" in order to soften the mental anguish that death generously bestows upon us? Could we have then embraced this "god" to help explain how we came into existence? Is it possible that this "god" is both omnipotent because it only exists in our minds, where we control the rules and laws thus giving it unlimited boundaries. And could god be omnipresent because once again it is in our minds, and if we imagine a place, we can simply, insert god there to?

But could "god" actually exist in a tangible, provable form? If so how could we have faith? How could we actually love "god" on the plane required? Isn't that the ultimate expression of love, and faithfulness, to blindly follow with not a single shred of evidence? Is faith eagerly awaiting the return, with no guarantees when or if it will ever happen? Could this be the love and faithful devotion that "god" requires? How can you have faith in something you can prove? If you could prove it then it would be fact, and as such no faith required. In the end faith and fact cannot coexist. And if "god" is a higher being that requires us to have faith, then "god" could never allow us to prove Divine existence.

But what about religion, that was created by "god" right? If "god" is a prehistoric mechanism invented by our subconscious, then religion would be the corrupt counter part invented by our dirty conscious, simply to name, reason, and control the super-being which our subconscious?s invented. But wait god is an object right? And he ordained ministers, spoke to pastors, and blessed rabbis? right? But if those Divine happenings did in fact occur then proof has been provided, thus eliminating the need for faith?

Maybe instead religion is no more than a method of slavery. Could the term "god" only exist to provide a universal proxy by which this creation can referenced? If we could not reference this "god" then we could not control it, thus inhibiting the ability to manipulate those who believe in our control as well. So could "god" be the whip of religion? Could war be the cotton of religion? Could hell be the noose of religion, for those who choose to run?

But religion has never forced anybody to do anything? Well quite the contrary, with this noose so eloquently termed "eternal damnation", it has forced war (Israel, Palestine), murder (9.11), rape (catholic priests), and mayhem (crusades). Religion is quite simply the deadliest and most corrupt form of slavery ever devised. Our priests, rabbis, pastors, monks, etc are none other than our masters. What are the qualifications for this promotion in society? Simply to be able to manipulate this slave control mechanism effectively.

So how does religion and government relate, if they both must control the hearts and minds of there followers? Could the separation of church and state be one slave master declaring war on another master? Are we be about to witness a war of epic proportions? Could this war be for our hearts and minds? Can you really have two slave masters and not have friction; after all we are not omnipresent are we? Based on this logical friction, government and religion must be separated to prevent the impending war. But if you separate them, then one must loose and one must win? So how do you decide that? Well who has the biggest guns? Religion has eternal damnation, and enduring love, government has health, wealth, and pride. Perhaps this is why our countries forefathers decided it was best to play referee and separate the two? But couldn't government and religion get along? No. They must be separated as both require absolute devotion, and one cannot be 100% devoted to two items.

So where does this leave us.... well for lack of better terms it leaves us cluster ****ed, with no clear answers or paths to choose, only that we must choose what is best for I.Look child. Before you attempt to rub your arguments into our faces, first check if they're arguments at all. The post quoted above proves absolutely nothing. All it does is pose an endless list of unrelated questions, which arrive at an irrelevant conclusion.

You start out by asking us if god was created by our subconscious to justify our existence... why not? Since you pose this point in a question, logically speaking it is impossible for you to prove anything with it. Logic requires sound propositions in the form of statements, and asking us whether we created god hardly shows that we did.

Your second paragraph is even worse. One would have assumed that you were going to expand upon the flimsy ideas of the first with some solid reason, but instead you jump to a completely different point. You say that if god existed in our plane, we would have no need for faith in him. To this you are correct. Faith is not only a blind trust in the existence of a power, but also in his ability to perform miracles. President Bush exists within the physical universe, and it would be entirely valid (though questionable) to have faith in his abilities as a president. Check a dictionary before you embark on such philosophical garbage.

Paragraph three jumps to a completely different point -- who would have guessed it? Here you attempt to prove that since prophets spoke with god, god must exist, and therefore we do not require faith in his existence. This proposition involves two massive inaccuracies: that you cannot have faith in something that exists (which I disproved above) and that prophets imply god's existence. Just because someone says that they are able to communicate with god doesn't mean that they can. The religious follower still requires a certain amount of faith that the prophet is telling the truth. Hence, prophets still require faith. Fortunately, you picked up on this fallacy in the following paragraph.

In the next two paragraphs you claim that religious institutions take advantage of the blind trust, or faith, of the people to enslave them. I must commend you here, because you finally used some examples of holy wars and religious injustices to prove what you are saying. However, the simple presence of examples doesn't prove your point... if you have one. It's easy to say that 9/11 and the Israel/Palestine conflict are proof that religion manipulates the individual, but it could be easily argued that both are isolated cases of fanaticism. I am not going to contest that religion has the ability to influence the actions of others, however it is questionable to imply that organized religion exists to enslave the general populace, unless you believe nuns feeding the hungry to be vicious overseers cracking their whips upon society. Get real.

Sadly, your next paragraph jumps to yet another unrelated point, that the government is the slave driver of society. Unfortunately, you don't back it up with any evidence. You can't just say things in a debate -- you have to prove them. I wish you better luck next time.

Regardless, in the same paragraph you arrive to the conclusion that there will be an eventual confrontation between religion and government, and at this point I burst out into laughter. I don't know who taught you how to argue a point, but leaping from we created god to if god existed there would be no faith to prophets eliminate faith to religion is slavery to government is slavery to government and religion collide hardly proves anything.

When you reply to this post I want you to do the following:

1) Choose exactly what it is you want to prove
2) Actually prove it without the use of inquiry
3) Lose the arrogant attitude you display in the above post

I'm going to ignore your following post because I doubt that it is any more logically coherent than this one. You are hardly an intellectual champion NAATYE, I just never bothered to read your post.

Oh, and don't try to justify such a dodgy post with the typical "I did that on purpose to see if you would catch it". We both know that's a lie.

NAATYE
11-07-2005, 08:04 AM
Look child. Before you attempt to rub your arguments into our faces, first check if they're arguments at all. The post quoted above proves absolutely nothing. All it does is pose an endless list of unrelated questions, which arrive at an irrelevant conclusion.

You start out by asking us if god was created by our subconscious to justify our existence... why not? Since you pose this point in a question, logically speaking it is impossible for you to prove anything with it. Logic requires sound propositions in the form of statements, and asking us whether we created god hardly shows that we did.

Your second paragraph is even worse. One would have assumed that you were going to expand upon the flimsy ideas of the first with some solid reason, but instead you jump to a completely different point. You say that if god existed in our plane, we would have no need for faith in him. To this you are correct. Faith is not only a blind trust in the existence of a power, but also in his ability to perform miracles. President Bush exists within the physical universe, and it would be entirely valid (though questionable) to have faith in his abilities as a president. Check a dictionary before you embark on such philosophical garbage.

Paragraph three jumps to a completely different point -- who would have guessed it? Here you attempt to prove that since prophets spoke with god, god must exist, and therefore we do not require faith in his existence. This proposition involves two massive inaccuracies: that you cannot have faith in something that exists (which I disproved above) and that prophets imply god's existence. Just because someone says that they are able to communicate with god doesn't mean that they can. The religious follower still requires a certain amount of faith that the prophet is telling the truth. Hence, prophets still require faith. Fortunately, you picked up on this fallacy in the following paragraph.

In the next two paragraphs you claim that religious institutions take advantage of the blind trust, or faith, of the people to enslave them. I must commend you here, because you finally used some examples of holy wars and religious injustices to prove what you are saying. However, the simple presence of examples doesn't prove your point... if you have one. It's easy to say that 9/11 and the Israel/Palestine conflict are proof that religion manipulates the individual, but it could be easily argued that both are isolated cases of fanaticism. I am not going to contest that religion has the ability to influence the actions of others, however it is questionable to imply that organized religion exists to enslave the general populace, unless you believe nuns feeding the hungry to be vicious overseers cracking their whips upon society. Get real.

Sadly, your next paragraph jumps to yet another unrelated point, that the government is the slave driver of society. Unfortunately, you don't back it up with any evidence. You can't just say things in a debate -- you have to prove them. I wish you better luck next time.

Regardless, in the same paragraph you arrive to the conclusion that there will be an eventual confrontation between religion and government, and at this point I burst out into laughter. I don't know who taught you how to argue a point, but leaping from we created god to if god existed there would be no faith to prophets eliminate faith to religion is slavery to government is slavery to government and religion collide hardly proves anything.

When you reply to this post I want you to do the following:

1) Choose exactly what it is you want to prove
2) Actually prove it without the use of inquiry
3) Lose the arrogant attitude you display in the above post

I'm going to ignore your following post because I doubt that it is any more logically coherent than this one. You are hardly an intellectual champion NAATYE, I just never bothered to read your post.

Oh, and don't try to justify such a dodgy post with the typical "I did that on purpose to see if you would catch it". We both know that's a lie.

Thank god, finally a decent reply. It is a shame that your the only one to a provide decent response. I will reply to you comments appropriately tonight when I get off work. Look for the edit of this post. Note my comments above about this argument... I knew it was flawed from the start, yet nobody challenged it, they only agreed. But as you so aptly point out, there really is very little arguement at all in my comments, most are just fluff to draw away from the fact that there is very little evidence pointing to or against the existence of god. So once again I thank you, and will respond appropriately tonight.

IversonAli3
11-07-2005, 09:22 AM
I'm just not sure about religion. So many viable options, each with their own proof. For that reason I respect all religions and faiths, or lack of one.

banana_sam
11-07-2005, 12:03 PM
It's not worth thinking about really. Why spend what precious little time we have on earth pondering what will happen after it ends? Just live your life the best you can, and leave the answers for later.

Ikji
11-07-2005, 03:14 PM
It's not worth thinking about really. Why spend what precious little time we have on earth pondering what will happen after it ends? Just live your life the best you can, and leave the answers for later.
Why deny our own curiosity? Many religions state how to live the best life you possibly can and tell how you can have the best life after this one. You cannot that there is no god and in the same respect you cannot prove that god is real.

What you just said to do, basically, is what many religions teach except for the answers part. That is what I am meaning in the above paragraph.

If we have such a precious little time on Earth, then why do we educate ourselves, why do people bother advancing? Your statement contradicts itself. Your belief on this forum has been for education for people, but that is not living the best life on can possibly live. A person's life would be full of study, but little actual fun. After the education comes a good job which brings stress. To say that one part of the whole is not worthy of being enhanced is not a proper approach. Having religion then should be a part of a person's life just as much as anything else.

By saying that you want to leave the answers for later is incorporating a religious belief. You just stated that you believe in an afterlife. It seems that you already wasted your life? I congradulate you on living the worst possible life using your own idiotic theory.

banana_sam
11-07-2005, 04:07 PM
Why deny our own curiosity? Many religions state how to live the best life you possibly can and tell how you can have the best life after this one. You cannot that there is no god and in the same respect you cannot prove that god is real.

What you just said to do, basically, is what many religions teach except for the answers part. That is what I am meaning in the above paragraph.

If we have such a precious little time on Earth, then why do we educate ourselves, why do people bother advancing? Your statement contradicts itself. Your belief on this forum has been for education for people, but that is not living the best life on can possibly live. A person's life would be full of study, but little actual fun. After the education comes a good job which brings stress. To say that one part of the whole is not worthy of being enhanced is not a proper approach. Having religion then should be a part of a person's life just as much as anything else.

By saying that you want to leave the answers for later is incorporating a religious belief. You just stated that you believe in an afterlife. It seems that you already wasted your life? I congradulate you on living the worst possible life using your own idiotic theory.You're wrong. Unlike education and advancement, which are obtainable, it is impossible for us to find religious answers substantial enough to qualify as knowledge.

I don't need religion to tell me how to run my life. I know killing is wrong. I know not to steal. I know not to sleep with my neighbor's wife. It's entirely possible to live a moral life without religion.

Similarly, religion is no assurance that a person will live a moral life. Countless wars and atrocities have been committed in religion's name. How moral is that?

Bottom line, why ponder what you can't answer. Think your response through.

Ikji
11-07-2005, 04:42 PM
You're wrong. Unlike education and advancement, which are obtainable, it is impossible for us to find religious answers substantial enough to qualify as knowledge.

I don't need religion to tell me how to run my life. I know killing is wrong. I know not to steal. I know not to sleep with my neighbor's wife. It's entirely possible to live a moral life without religion.

Similarly, religion is no assurance that a person will live a moral life. Countless wars and atrocities have been committed in religion's name. How moral is that?

Bottom line, why ponder what you can't answer. Think your response through.


Many of our laws have come from moral values and many of our moral values have come from religion. Look at the origins.

People who commit atrocities in religion's name are not religious. Just because someone claims to be religious and massacres people doesn't mean that it is the religions fault.

Why ponder what we can't answer? It is our very nature to ponder.

Education and advancement are not need for a good life, so that point is mute.

llafnwod
11-07-2005, 05:29 PM
Many of our laws have come from moral values and many of our moral values have come from religion. Look at the origins.

People who commit atrocities in religion's name are not religious. Just because someone claims to be religious and massacres people doesn't mean that it is the religions fault.By your argument in the second paragraph, morality and virtue does not neccessarily need to some from religion either.

banana_sam
11-07-2005, 08:42 PM
Many of our laws have come from moral values and many of our moral values have come from religion. Look at the origins.

People who commit atrocities in religion's name are not religious. Just because someone claims to be religious and massacres people doesn't mean that it is the religions fault.

Why ponder what we can't answer? It is our very nature to ponder.

Education and advancement are not need for a good life, so that point is mute.Here's your points:

1) Many morals come from religion so all morals do.

Logical fallacy #1. Just because religion can boost moral judgment, doesn't mean it always does. This brings us to...

2) It's not the religion's fault if people misinterpret

Of course it's not the religion's fault, religion is an institution and not an individual. However, religion can have positive as well as negative influences on a person. You have yet to disprove this.

3) It's our nature to ponder, so let's do so.

Go ahead, but I'd rather spend my mental energies on trying to stop AIDS and civil war in Africa than on pondering the mysteries of the universe. Just because we can ponder doesn't mean we should. There are better things to do with our time.

4) Education and advancement aren't necessary for a good life.

And religion is? If that's what you are trying to imply, I request some proof of your statement. Otherwise, education and advancement, which I interpret as overall development, are much more current to society than pondering our existence. You can ponder religion in bucket of mud and feces as they did in the dark ages, or you can figure out how to make a toilet to remove that bucket from society. Which do you prefer?

Ikji
11-07-2005, 09:15 PM
Here's your points:

1) Many morals come from religion so all morals do.

Logical fallacy #1. Just because religion can boost moral judgment, doesn't mean it always does. This brings us to...

2) It's not the religion's fault if people misinterpret

Of course it's not the religion's fault, religion is an institution and not an individual. However, religion can have positive as well as negative influences on a person. You have yet to disprove this.

3) It's our nature to ponder, so let's do so.

Go ahead, but I'd rather spend my mental energies on trying to stop AIDS and civil war in Africa than on pondering the mysteries of the universe. Just because we can ponder doesn't mean we should. There are better things to do with our time.

4) Education and advancement aren't necessary for a good life.

And religion is? If that's what you are trying to imply, I request some proof of your statement. Otherwise, education and advancement, which I interpret as overall development, are much more current to society than pondering our existence. You can ponder religion in bucket of mud and feces as they did in the dark ages, or you can figure out how to make a toilet to remove that bucket from society. Which do you prefer?

Religion boosts morality more than it takes away from, since all of our morals come from religion, then religion is essential. Since you claim to abide by these to live a good life, we needed religion first to have these.

Religion causing murder: this is the cause of peoples acceptance rate also. It deals with new ideas, theories, and so on. Many people can believe in something so much that an opposing view is a threat to them. This is not the religions fault and the negative influences it has on people is from/caused by the society as a whole.

I do not wish to live in ignorance as you do, I wish to know my roots; religions help explain them. They may be wrong or correct, it is a base at least.

Advancement and education does not necessarily mean happiness just as a low level of it does not necessarily mean happiness. It depends on how a person lives their life. Obesity, world wide epidemics, and many more are the causes of advancement.

NAATYE
11-09-2005, 06:57 PM
Look child. Before you attempt to rub your arguments into our faces, first check if they're arguments at all. The post quoted above proves absolutely nothing. All it does is pose an endless list of unrelated questions, which arrive at an irrelevant conclusion.

You start out by asking us if god was created by our subconscious to justify our existence... why not? Since you pose this point in a question, logically speaking it is impossible for you to prove anything with it. Logic requires sound propositions in the form of statements, and asking us whether we created god hardly shows that we did.

Your second paragraph is even worse. One would have assumed that you were going to expand upon the flimsy ideas of the first with some solid reason, but instead you jump to a completely different point. You say that if god existed in our plane, we would have no need for faith in him. To this you are correct. Faith is not only a blind trust in the existence of a power, but also in his ability to perform miracles. President Bush exists within the physical universe, and it would be entirely valid (though questionable) to have faith in his abilities as a president. Check a dictionary before you embark on such philosophical garbage.

Paragraph three jumps to a completely different point -- who would have guessed it? Here you attempt to prove that since prophets spoke with god, god must exist, and therefore we do not require faith in his existence. This proposition involves two massive inaccuracies: that you cannot have faith in something that exists (which I disproved above) and that prophets imply god's existence. Just because someone says that they are able to communicate with god doesn't mean that they can. The religious follower still requires a certain amount of faith that the prophet is telling the truth. Hence, prophets still require faith. Fortunately, you picked up on this fallacy in the following paragraph.

In the next two paragraphs you claim that religious institutions take advantage of the blind trust, or faith, of the people to enslave them. I must commend you here, because you finally used some examples of holy wars and religious injustices to prove what you are saying. However, the simple presence of examples doesn't prove your point... if you have one. It's easy to say that 9/11 and the Israel/Palestine conflict are proof that religion manipulates the individual, but it could be easily argued that both are isolated cases of fanaticism. I am not going to contest that religion has the ability to influence the actions of others, however it is questionable to imply that organized religion exists to enslave the general populace, unless you believe nuns feeding the hungry to be vicious overseers cracking their whips upon society. Get real.

Sadly, your next paragraph jumps to yet another unrelated point, that the government is the slave driver of society. Unfortunately, you don't back it up with any evidence. You can't just say things in a debate -- you have to prove them. I wish you better luck next time.

Regardless, in the same paragraph you arrive to the conclusion that there will be an eventual confrontation between religion and government, and at this point I burst out into laughter. I don't know who taught you how to argue a point, but leaping from we created god to if god existed there would be no faith to prophets eliminate faith to religion is slavery to government is slavery to government and religion collide hardly proves anything.

When you reply to this post I want you to do the following:

1) Choose exactly what it is you want to prove
2) Actually prove it without the use of inquiry
3) Lose the arrogant attitude you display in the above post

I'm going to ignore your following post because I doubt that it is any more logically coherent than this one. You are hardly an intellectual champion NAATYE, I just never bothered to read your post.

Oh, and don't try to justify such a dodgy post with the typical "I did that on purpose to see if you would catch it". We both know that's a lie.

Allow me to critique your argument toward me and my comments.

1) The Opening statements of your argument toward me commit the following fallacy. Argumentum ad hominem. Allow me to give an example of this for you. "Banana_Sam has obviously forgotten what he learned about debating." Note that by injecting that previous statement I would have been addressing your character, and as such offering nothing relevant to the debate on hand.

2) You forget the fact that God is a very broad topic, and is related to religion, thus my narrowing, or defining, if you will, of what scope I am referring to god in is needed. If my goal was to debate the existence of god, I would have declined.

3) But we aren't talking about faith in abilities are we? No, instead we are talking about the need to have faith in gods existence if he was on our plane.

4) Chat with the straw man much?

OK, Well I am bored now, thanks.I would finish up my critique, but I just don't see the point, as I am sure you know all the different logical fallacies, and my pointing them out is not going to help you any. Furthermore I really have nothing against you, I just think you have taken my previous comments out of context. Note how I was prodding and poking fun of my own arguments. Also please notice that nobody put up any arguments to my statements, except you. This is very frustrating, since I wrote them in only a couple of minutes, and knew when I was posting them that they were full of holes.


Anybody with half a brain should be able to poke holes through the several fallacies deployed in my arguments. Hell if nobody steps up maybe I will start teaching a class on how to poke holes through common arguments.

I am just going to assume that you forgot to read that part, when posting your last statement.

banana_sam
11-10-2005, 06:17 PM
Yawn. List all of the potential fallacies you wish, considering that the first lines of my post were aimed at insulting your post, rather than refuting it.

It's obvious that neither you nor I care enough to effectively debate the topic. Let's call it off unless you want to have a real go at it. None of this half-assed crap.

han_han
11-10-2005, 10:22 PM
It would seem the best religion would be reality, though this idea itself is unreal because most religions seek to explain reality. My personal religion stems from atheism and I like to call upon "Science" as my religion. If you can prove it and test it many, many times and have it accepted as a scientific theory, I'll believe it. Since no one has any solid and concrete proof that God exists, I'll have to consider him nonexistent for now. This does not mean I have no respect for peoples' rights and their opinions. Many wars have been caused over religion, and to walk right back into that situation is foolish, however easy it may be. Science, once again, is my religion. Science is all.

NAATYE
11-11-2005, 04:53 PM
Yawn. List all of the potential fallacies you wish, considering that the first lines of my post were aimed at insulting your post, rather than refuting it.

It's obvious that neither you nor I care enough to effectively debate the topic. Let's call it off unless you want to have a real go at it. None of this half-assed crap.
I honestly don't have the time to debate something properly, so I will agree to calling it off, since half assed debates aren't going to do anything but make us look like asses.

banana_sam
11-12-2005, 08:46 AM
Agreed.

----------------------------------------------------------------
From Andover[yT]: Banana for future referance , can you have a responce with more than 1 mord?

Thanks-
Andover[yT]
----------------------------------------------------------------